11–20 of 479 posts
Robinhood has been known to be sham for a very long time. Anyone with money there is willfully ignorant.
It’s hard to say they weren’t impactful, though we can disagree on the positivity of the impact itself.
The CEO just gave 3 interviews tonight and denied this was at all related to liquidity issues for the company in all 3 when pressed. Terrible look.
Would be crazy to think short sellers were buying up all the sell side stocks/options while retail were panic selling, to hedge against their shorts.
Robinhood has been known to be sham for a very long time. Anyone with money there is willfully ignorant.
It’s not a scam it’s just a pretty mediocre broker with a fancy ui. Lest we forget they introduced many traders to options, for better and worse. They are/were WSBs broker of choice. They changed the fee landscape in trading US-wide. It’s hard to say they weren’t impactful, though we can disagree on the positivity of the impact itself.
it's flashy and sort of stylish, but it's really woefully under-featured compared to just about any other broker e-trading software out there.
The CEO just gave 3 interviews tonight and denied this was at all related to liquidity issues for the company in all 3 when pressed. Terrible look.
Not denying that all securities have risks, but that was a bad response imo.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They sent an email yesterday: "As a brokerage firm, we have many financial requirements, including SEC net capital obligations and clearinghouse deposits. Some of these requirements fluctuate based on volatility in the markets and can be substantial in the current environment. These requirements exist to protect investors and the markets and we take our responsibilities to comply with them seriously, including throug…
and at the same time their own CEO made statements that they dont have liquidity issues. They also sent that communication well after the market closed. They should have sent a much more detailed explanation right at market open thursday
Robinhood has been known to be sham for a very long time. Anyone with money there is willfully ignorant.
yes... https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2020-321
A) SEC should remove the option of "without admitting or denying" this time
B) The CEO is choosing to speak in double speak because anything he says will violate the antifraud provisions after already being slapped for violating the antifraud provisions. (isn't the point of a law for the punishment to be a little more than agreeing not the violate the law? circular civil suit that should have been referred to the DOJ)
C) Refer current actions to the DOJ and this prior settlement that was violated.
The narrative seems to fit a little too comfortably...